It is comprehensible, the world can only fuck you so much before you want to fuck it back. It's like the joker, "some people just want to see the world burns" how hard is that to fathom?Sean Hollyman said:
Most morally incomprehensible character in fiction?
- Thread starter Relish in Chaos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, I do mean "incomprehensible"; as in, you can't understand why the hell they do certain things based on their crazy beliefs about the world. "Reprehensible" just means really, really bad. Like, someone earlier mentioned Dio Brando, but - aside from what we learn his ultimate goal is in Part 6 - he's doing all this nasty shit to JoJo so he can crush his spirit and overtake him as the heir of the Joestar fortune. Of course, shit happens, Dio changes, and...yeah, I won't spoil anymore for those who haven't read or seen JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, but ironically, even though he's the least developed in his introductory arc, his motives make more sense than the bullshit "Heaven" stuff in Part 3 and 6.Ubiquitous Duck said:
So you answering with the Joker still makes sense, because of all the orderly yet disorderly plots he constructs purely to push Batman over the edge and kill him (even though, if the Joker got Batman to kill him, he wouldn't even be alive to celebrate that fact).
Sorry for the double post.
I forgot to mention Percy Wetmore from The Green Mile. Especially how he treated Eduard Delacroix, starting from a simple misunderstanding over nothing.
(Christ, that was a damn good film; I feel like watching it again now.)
I forgot to mention Percy Wetmore from The Green Mile. Especially how he treated Eduard Delacroix, starting from a simple misunderstanding over nothing.
He's a hitman. His backstory is largely unknown, but unlike the others, he's quite consistent in what he does and carries out his murders for money.Pluvia said:
(Christ, that was a damn good film; I feel like watching it again now.)
OK, that makes a little bit more sense...but as you said, it's silly because I don't see why Walter would put his desire to fulfil his curiosity of whether or not he could kill the greatest vampire over the safety of the family he'd been serving for at least fifty years. And there was just no hint that he felt this way about Alucard; they even seemed like quite good friends.McMindflayer said:
The Erudite community in Divergent
Their whole plan is to exterminate the pacifists by making the military hallucinate that they're in a training exercise. Not only is it a ridiculously stupid plan that depends on no one else in the community caring that you committed genocide, but it's completely unnecessary. You're up against a group whose whole reason for existing is making personal sacrifices to protect eveyone and it doesn't occur to anyone in the "super-intelligent" group to just tell the super meek pacifists that, "unless you quit being sole rulers of this society, we will have an armed rebellion and people will die"?
Among the dumbest bad guys in recent literary history who are somehow known as the smartest group. Which makes their reprehensible morality incomprehensible.
Among the dumbest bad guys in recent literary history who are somehow known as the smartest group. Which makes their reprehensible morality incomprehensible.
But why phrase it like that? He says "I hate the Moor", then follows with an AND about him and his wife. Wouldn't he hate him BECAUSE he cheated on him, rather than simply tack that reason at the end of a statement? Besides I don't buy that excuse at all. I don't think Othello would betray Iago's friendship, and I don't think Iago would believe such hearsay at all. It feels more like Iago is trying to justify his actions with ridiculous incriminations. Of Cassio he later says "He hath a daily beauty in his life that makes me ugly", again as if trying to justify throwing him into the plot as well.Quintley said:
I wouldn't say he's actively working against us, more that he's trying to push us in the right direction.Rellik San said:
Humans where arrogant, so he bloodied our nose with the Borg. Picard first talked about how calm, cool and collected humanity was when they first met, he set in motion the chain of events which let do "NO! NOOOOOOOOO" (smashing of the ship case window). He's pushing humanity in the direction he wants them to go in.
Though then again, there is a fan theory that he's self aware, and his antics are simply to allow his universe to go on since once the "true gods" are no longer entertained the universe comes to an end. Actually quite horrifying if you think about it.
You have a point. I guess I just find it hard to believe that he'd go to such extremes at the drop of a hat. Then again, Anakin was always a defiant little git who never listened to reason.shootthebandit said:
It is according to the LucasFilm Story Group. It's one of the few things besides the films that survived the Great Canon Purge.shootthebandit said:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon
From what I've seen of him in TNG (never watched Voyager), Q started off as an antagonist, then gradually shifted to the role of enigmatic mentor and even occasional ally. While initially contemptuous of humanity, he eventually started to harbor a grudging respect thanks to his encounters with Picard. A major turning point was his temporary banishment by the rest of the Q Continuum. Being stripped of his powers was nothing short of terrifying for him, and he was at one point willing to take his own life were it not for the crew of the Enterprise. Eventually Q came to appreciate humanity and even indirectly help them in his own eccentric way, dropping hints for Picard or nudging him towards some revelation.Rellik San said:
I think with Othello, you can only really speculate.Johnny Novgorod said:
There's potential jealously over the promotion of Othello over Iago.
Potential jealous over his marriage, not necessarily because Iago covets Desdemona but because his own marriage has become stale and he envies their infatuation with each other, the newness and excitement of their relationship.
I was probably better equipped to discuss this a few years ago though, it's been a while.
I always thought that was something to throw off the audience, justify his actions.Quintley said:
Iago tries to manipulate everyone in the play, including the audience.
I thought he was just fucking around....XDZontar said:
I got the impression Percy was just a spoiled kid with a sadistic streak, something about Delacroix just brought it out (probably his being "weak") interestingly it could be a similar effect to the "standford prison experiment"...some people are just cruelRelish in Chaos said:
the scene with the electric chair...I think Percy didn't actually know what was going to happen (the look his his face says that much), but he just wanted to see, it might not have even been about Delacroix in the end
Isn't this pretty much the entire concept behind Lovecraftian horror? Terrifying beings that are too vast and alien for humans to understand.
Now, given that he might well have sound reasons (Fargo is the only Coen brothers movie I haven't seen yet and the series isn't done yet), but so far Malvo in Fargo seems to have very little motivation other than that he enjoys it. He didn't have to get involved with Lester, he didn't have to respond to Gus whe he was leaving Duluth police station and he didn't need to fuck with Stavros as dramatically as he has. Oh, and taking a shit in front of someone. Pretty strange.
Now, given that he might well have sound reasons (Fargo is the only Coen brothers movie I haven't seen yet and the series isn't done yet), but so far Malvo in Fargo seems to have very little motivation other than that he enjoys it. He didn't have to get involved with Lester, he didn't have to respond to Gus whe he was leaving Duluth police station and he didn't need to fuck with Stavros as dramatically as he has. Oh, and taking a shit in front of someone. Pretty strange.
It's been about six or seven years since I read and discussed the play, but I recall hearing a pretty convincing argument that Iago is actually a closet racist. Iago believing the hearsay about Othello and his wife is more an attempt to convince himself that he is justified in his hate (I'm not racist! He slept with my wife!). I remember arguing this made sense given the context the play was written in and Shakespeare's own talent for subversive commentary on race relations. After all, if race wasn't a factor why would you make the title character a Moor?Johnny Novgorod said:
Just my two cents. But hey, as I said, it's been fucking ages since I read the damn thing and I never had to put in as much effort into thinking about it as I did other plays like Hamlet, so I'm probably talking out my arse. Happens more often then not.
everything Lucas touched personally is blessed with being canon. this means that the Mandalorians are now pacifists and Jango Fett was never one of them, just a guy who stole a set of armor. Yes, the clone army makes even less sense now.shootthebandit said:
the things touched by lucas are also the only things not effected by the great purge.
cause Batman is easy to figure out, hes an emotionally dead 9-yr old in an adult body fulfilling a fantasy for vengeance over the random death of his parents which his own fear from something in a Zorro stand-in film caused.Zac Jovanovic said:I'm surprised no else mentioned him but...
he is trying to exert his will and order over a chaotic universe, and the Joker is the perfect nemesis for him because the Joker accepts and embodies that chaos.
granted that all changes when he makes his first(and only) actual friend, finally start to progress past a child screaming "vengeance" at the universe, and stop being an icon of fear.
and instead begins standing for justice.
Well, I can think of lots who are either inconsistently written or just plain stupid ("It is not a thing you can comprehend"), but I'm having trouble thinking of a character with motivations that I didn't at least comprehend, no matter how insane or illogical it was.
I would say... this guy.
Admittedly, I've yet to finish the game, but all of The HIV Wizard's (That's what I call him) dialogue sounds like he wrote a big philosophical speech on his way to confront Ryu, but he lost the notes on his way and just had to make things up as he went along.
Then, when his companions confronted him and asked "What the fuck was that?", he was to embarrassed to admit the truth so he just went with the flow and acted like these were his ideals all along. Now every time he runs into Ryu he tries to explain his motivations in a way that make sense, but he just keeps making everyone more confused.
TL;DR: This guys plans are a fine-ass madness
I would say... this guy.
Admittedly, I've yet to finish the game, but all of The HIV Wizard's (That's what I call him) dialogue sounds like he wrote a big philosophical speech on his way to confront Ryu, but he lost the notes on his way and just had to make things up as he went along.
Then, when his companions confronted him and asked "What the fuck was that?", he was to embarrassed to admit the truth so he just went with the flow and acted like these were his ideals all along. Now every time he runs into Ryu he tries to explain his motivations in a way that make sense, but he just keeps making everyone more confused.
TL;DR: This guys plans are a fine-ass madness
I've noticed a fair few anime villains/anti-heroes getting mentioned whenever a discussion like this comes up, and while I don't watch much anime, I do have to listen to endless lectures on various characters and their bizarrely contrived motivation. I've come to the conclusion that...perhaps...anime is really not the bastion of excellent characterisation and writing that I have been informed it is, and that maybe it really is just cartoons with excessive gore.
In terms of those characters, it always comes down to a sense of scale, doesn't it? Batman fights criminals out of some sense of revenge for his dead parents, while Anime Villain wants to destroy the world because someone was mean to him one time. Also there's the old "let's take creepy things, apply them to usually non-creepy things, and create TEN YEAR OLD MURDERER-RAPIST TWINS!"
I forget which anime that is. Begins with an H, I think.
What I'm trying to say, I think, is that anime characters totally shouldn't count in this thread because their motivations are often far too contrived and forced to be legitimately, in-fiction incomprehensible, and are just plain silly.
On a more relevant note, and eerily similar to the whole complaint about anime up there, look at the villains from Modern Warfare 2 and 3. This character wanted war, for whatever reason, so they staged a massacre and RUSSIA STEAMROLLED OVER EUROPE AND INVADED THE US! (From a really strange entry point)
In terms of those characters, it always comes down to a sense of scale, doesn't it? Batman fights criminals out of some sense of revenge for his dead parents, while Anime Villain wants to destroy the world because someone was mean to him one time. Also there's the old "let's take creepy things, apply them to usually non-creepy things, and create TEN YEAR OLD MURDERER-RAPIST TWINS!"
I forget which anime that is. Begins with an H, I think.
What I'm trying to say, I think, is that anime characters totally shouldn't count in this thread because their motivations are often far too contrived and forced to be legitimately, in-fiction incomprehensible, and are just plain silly.
On a more relevant note, and eerily similar to the whole complaint about anime up there, look at the villains from Modern Warfare 2 and 3. This character wanted war, for whatever reason, so they staged a massacre and RUSSIA STEAMROLLED OVER EUROPE AND INVADED THE US! (From a really strange entry point)